The great unifying thread is that there is no *labour* in the labour supply of neoclassical economics as practiced today. How this came about is through a hilarious sequence of three-card monte simplifying assumptions, punctuated by... "Look! A squirrel!"
Of course they don't realize there's no labour in their models. They think "L" stands for labour (it doesn't). But watch out for the reaction if you try to bring labour back in! On Thu, May 9, 2013 at 1:46 PM, Jurriaan Bendien <[email protected]>wrote: > I don't think that there is one unified social ontology underlying > neoclassical economics which everyone accepts. > > According to Dani Rodrik, Neoclassical economics says "you need to state > your ideas clearly, you need to ensure they are internally consistent, with > clear assumptions and causal links, and you need to be rigorous in your use > of empirical evidence". But in reality the content of neoclassical > economics is for the most part very far removed from that. > > -- Cheers, Tom Walker (Sandwichman)
_______________________________________________ pen-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
